Executive summary: The standard argument for delaying AI development, often framed as a utilitarian effort to reduce existential risk, implicitly prioritizes the survival of the human species itself rather than maximizing well-being across all sentient beings, making it inconsistent with strict utilitarian principles.
Key points:
While delaying AI is often justified by the utilitarian astronomical waste argument, this reasoning assumes that AI-driven human extinction equates to total loss of future value, which is not necessarily true.
If advanced AIs continue civilization and generate moral value, then human extinction is distinct from total existential catastrophe, making species survival a non-utilitarian concern.
The argument for delaying AI often rests on an implicit speciesist preference for human survival, rather than on clear evidence that AI would produce less moral value than human-led civilization.
A consistent utilitarian view would give moral weight to all sentient beings, including AIs, and would not inherently favor human control over the future.
If AI development is delayed, present-day humans may miss out on significant benefits, such as medical breakthroughs and life extension, which creates a direct tradeoff.
While a utilitarian case for delaying AI could exist (e.g., if AIs were unlikely to be conscious or morally aligned), such arguments are rarely explicitly made or substantiated in EA discussions.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The standard argument for delaying AI development, often framed as a utilitarian effort to reduce existential risk, implicitly prioritizes the survival of the human species itself rather than maximizing well-being across all sentient beings, making it inconsistent with strict utilitarian principles.
Key points:
While delaying AI is often justified by the utilitarian astronomical waste argument, this reasoning assumes that AI-driven human extinction equates to total loss of future value, which is not necessarily true.
If advanced AIs continue civilization and generate moral value, then human extinction is distinct from total existential catastrophe, making species survival a non-utilitarian concern.
The argument for delaying AI often rests on an implicit speciesist preference for human survival, rather than on clear evidence that AI would produce less moral value than human-led civilization.
A consistent utilitarian view would give moral weight to all sentient beings, including AIs, and would not inherently favor human control over the future.
If AI development is delayed, present-day humans may miss out on significant benefits, such as medical breakthroughs and life extension, which creates a direct tradeoff.
While a utilitarian case for delaying AI could exist (e.g., if AIs were unlikely to be conscious or morally aligned), such arguments are rarely explicitly made or substantiated in EA discussions.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.